Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

GOAT  davis  

Latest topics
» World Tour Finals 2017
Today at 9:07 pm by Jahu

» This Is What A Feminist Looks Like
Today at 5:46 pm by DECIMA

» Any rugby fans?
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:45 pm by Tenez

» Nadal whines over surface match ups with Federer in 2017
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:41 pm by Jahu

» The doping program joke of the ITF!!!
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:51 am by legendkillar

» Anyone want to swap a day ticket on Monday for Sunday??
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:33 am by Tenez

» So what's your projections for 2018?
Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:26 am by summerblues

» Race to London
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:27 am by Tenez

» Baby WTF - Next-Gen ATP Finals 2017
Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:32 am by noleisthebest

November 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Page 6 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:17 am

Yes, the intolerance of "atheists" is similar to those of "lefties" (or feminists etc)...condescending and almost militant.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25119
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by legendkillar on Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:16 pm

Applause  BB. Purely as you've more or less held your own conversation!

It's interesting. I doubt I would've ever gone into the level of detail you have (seemingly because of patience and intolerance).

legendkillar

Posts : 1926
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:19 pm

Daniel wrote:https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/cosmic-clowning-stephen-hawkings-new-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

Relevant.

I am not discussing the finer details of the science - I am simply pointing out that you've substituted one dogma for another, BB.  Like Hawking. I have a more open mind when it comes to the universe and the actual overall answer - if there is one.  I don't discount it on flimsy math - make predictions out of nowhere - or try to pretend that the colour red is solely explained by neural connections in the brain [btw nor do a number of prominent scientists, including Penrose].  We are missing huge parts of the picture - and there will always be room for god (or prime mover) there in what is missing.  But religion is nonsense - on that we should all be clear. Thing is... a lot of modern "science" is too.
I am almost certainly at an advantage to Hawking or Dawkins because I am unemcumbered by any sense of dread of a purposeless Universe. The poor guys seem to be almost as messed up by a fear of this as the God squadders.


Last edited by bogbrush on Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:21 pm

legendkillar wrote:Applause  BB. Purely as you've more or less held your own conversation!

It's interesting. I doubt I would've ever gone into the level of detail you have (seemingly because of patience and intolerance).
It's a hobby. I once engaged Jehovah's Witnesses in conversation at my door and reached the stage where they made their excuses and left. I think the killer was when they challenged me by saying that if there wasn't a God wouldn't that make life pointless, to which I replied that while I disagreed that it made me feel in any way less happy, even if it were true that wasn't sufficient cause to invent a fantasy just to cheer me up.

I feel like at some points in this thread it's come close to the same stage.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:09 am

I positioned myself as scientifically as possible but it was of course in vain. It is just sad that you don't even realise you have applied the same kind of logic as a jehovah's witness when confronted to the uniqueness of universe and life. You believe (even are certain there is) but so far there is no proof of it, like there is no proof of God. 

A purely scientific mind is simply left in the doubt.....until proven otherwise.

Tenez

Posts : 17374
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:27 pm

Tenez wrote:I positioned myself as scientifically as possible but it was of course in vain. It is just sad that you don't even realise you have applied the same kind of logic as a jehovah's witness when confronted to the uniqueness of universe and life. You believe (even are certain there is) but so far there is no proof of it, like there is no proof of God. 

A purely scientific mind is simply left in the doubt.....until proven otherwise.
Yeah, you scientifically imagine there must be a purpose because you can't conceive how the Universe could come into being or matter could organise as it could. I can. That's why I don't need all this fantasy purpose crap.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:40 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Tenez wrote:I positioned myself as scientifically as possible but it was of course in vain. It is just sad that you don't even realise you have applied the same kind of logic as a jehovah's witness when confronted to the uniqueness of universe and life. You believe (even are certain there is) but so far there is no proof of it, like there is no proof of God. 

A purely scientific mind is simply left in the doubt.....until proven otherwise.
Yeah, you scientifically imagine there must be a purpose because you can't conceive how the Universe could come into being or matter could organise as it could. I can. That's why I don't need all this fantasy purpose crap.
Of course there is purpose in everything, including in every word you have written in your post.
Something is keeping this world going in a very organised, purposeful way and order day in day out, year in year out.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25119
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:26 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Tenez wrote:I positioned myself as scientifically as possible but it was of course in vain. It is just sad that you don't even realise you have applied the same kind of logic as a jehovah's witness when confronted to the uniqueness of universe and life. You believe (even are certain there is) but so far there is no proof of it, like there is no proof of God. 

A purely scientific mind is simply left in the doubt.....until proven otherwise.
Yeah, you scientifically imagine there must be a purpose because you can't conceive how the Universe could come into being or matter could organise as it could. I can. That's why I don't need all this fantasy purpose crap.
Interesting cause you seem to have answers than no-one else has, and I mean by "no-one else" those who have dug a bit harder with at least as good a brain as yours: Einstein, Newton, Pascal, Descart, Galileo,  Jung, and 1000s more. That's why I believe you have not quite dug down enough on the scientific matter. Telling us what we already know about physical laws will never provide us clues one way or another. I don;t have the need to believe either, I just have the need to keep searching and I am not waiting someone to come up with additional laws of physics. It won;t help one extra iota.  

I guess that is why you found your eureka moment in front of lost Jehovah's witnesses. We would need a bit more substance when challenging the fundamental questions which condition human life.

Tenez

Posts : 17374
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:35 pm

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, you scientifically imagine there must be a purpose because you can't conceive how the Universe could come into being or matter could organise as it could. I can. That's why I don't need all this fantasy purpose crap.
I don't care about the how. That will never be the issue. It's the whys that really matter.

Tenez

Posts : 17374
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:21 am

I don't enjoy agreeing with Tenez, but I do agree that you are extrapolating answers from insanely complicated subjects, based on massively limited knowledge,  BB.  We don't have the kind of math or science to give any real picture.  That's why people far more gifted than us have also been stumped... like Penrose, Hoyle, Einstein, Heisenberg.   I think religion is the worst thing ever for understanding the world, but Hawking and the likes of him are giving it a run for their money.  And they're using the good name of science to do it.

There is absolutely no way that science in any way, shape, or form can explain how the universe came into being.  Even Dawkins concedes it never will. Then you get someone like Hawking saying "It doesn't matter." "What's north of the northpole".  Oh, shut up, you silly bastard.

Daniel

Posts : 3127
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:24 pm

Tenez - the why is irrelevent. There is no why. 

I didn't find a moment with that lot, I just enjoyed toying with them. They're complete dopes but their question about meaning betrayed their true motive for believing in God - their fear of the absence of purpose. I couldn't care less about it, and perhaps that freedom is something that liberates me from constraints held onto by more eminent others.

Daniel - drop Hawking, I don't see any reason why logic should be hostage to the opinions of one guy. I certainly don't feel the slightest bit driven to any my conclusions by him.


Bottom line guys, everyone's telling me there must be a purpose but they can't advance one iota of evidence for it. The only support is to state that not everything is yet explained by science; this is obviously true but it's a complete non sequitur to fill in the gap with "purpose". That's just another word for God but it tries to avoid the embaressment of confessing belief in supernatural beings.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:25 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Tenez wrote:I positioned myself as scientifically as possible but it was of course in vain. It is just sad that you don't even realise you have applied the same kind of logic as a jehovah's witness when confronted to the uniqueness of universe and life. You believe (even are certain there is) but so far there is no proof of it, like there is no proof of God. 

A purely scientific mind is simply left in the doubt.....until proven otherwise.
Yeah, you scientifically imagine there must be a purpose because you can't conceive how the Universe could come into being or matter could organise as it could. I can. That's why I don't need all this fantasy purpose crap.
Of course there is  purpose in everything, including in every word you have written in your post.
Something is keeping this world going in a very organised, purposeful way and order day in day out, year in year out.
It really isn't you know. You're conning yourself.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:40 pm

bogbrush wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Tenez wrote:I positioned myself as scientifically as possible but it was of course in vain. It is just sad that you don't even realise you have applied the same kind of logic as a jehovah's witness when confronted to the uniqueness of universe and life. You believe (even are certain there is) but so far there is no proof of it, like there is no proof of God. 

A purely scientific mind is simply left in the doubt.....until proven otherwise.
Yeah, you scientifically imagine there must be a purpose because you can't conceive how the Universe could come into being or matter could organise as it could. I can. That's why I don't need all this fantasy purpose crap.
Of course there is  purpose in everything, including in every word you have written in your post.
Something is keeping this world going in a very organised, purposeful way and order day in day out, year in year out.
It really isn't you know. You're conning yourself.
I could say the same about your comvictions, but what's the point of that?




Sorry, I forgot there is no point in anything..Winking

noleisthebest

Posts : 25119
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:51 pm

bogbrush wrote:Bottom line guys, everyone's telling me there must be a purpose but they can't advance one iota of evidence for it. The only support is to state that not everything is yet explained by science; this is obviously true but it's a complete non sequitur to fill in the gap with "purpose". That's just another word for God but it tries to avoid the embaressment of confessing belief in supernatural beings.
Science is not incompatible with purpose. In fact Science's only explains the purpose of everything. Nothing else. The mitochondria's purpose is to provide energy to the cell, The muscle's purpose is to move us around, etc.....Our blood doesn't coagulate "by chance" it had to in order to preserve liquid in our bodies and save life. You might say matter does not care about preserving life however, it worked very hard and very long to get where we are today and develop as many kinds of creatures as possible, so it seems to care. It woudl be so easy to remain a rock....or better not being at all.

And also, you are as religious as anybody. Your mindset is nothing new to this world either. You are not the first one who believes in what you see only, maybe you want to dig down in the myth of the Golden Calf. Your beliefs suits you well and maybe appease your mind, cause believing in a purpose doesn;t make life any easier, if anything it;s a bit harder on your ethics and mind.


Tenez

Posts : 17374
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:54 pm

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Bottom line guys, everyone's telling me there must be a purpose but they can't advance one iota of evidence for it. The only support is to state that not everything is yet explained by science; this is obviously true but it's a complete non sequitur to fill in the gap with "purpose". That's just another word for God but it tries to avoid the embaressment of confessing belief in supernatural beings.
Science is not incompatible with purpose. In fact Science's only explains the purpose of everything. Nothing else.  The mitochondria's purpose is to provide energy to the cell, The muscle's purpose is to move us around, etc.....Our blood doesn't coagulate "by chance" it had to in order to preserve liquid in our bodies and save life. You might say matter does not care about preserving life however,  it worked very hard and very long to get where we are today and develop as many kinds of creatures as possible, so it seems to care. It woudl be so easy to remain a rock....or better not being at all.

And also, you are as religious as anybody. Your mindset is nothing new to this world either. You are not the first one who believes in what you see only, maybe you want to dig down in the myth of the Golden Calf. Your beliefs suits you well and maybe appease your mind, cause believing in a purpose doesn;t make life any easier, if anything it;s a bit harder on your ethics and mind.

You don't understand evolution at all. 

Stuff doesn't evolve towards a purpose. All that happens is that copying errors are made and the solutions that happen to be better suited to surviving in the environment to copying stage get to copy more than the others, meaning the tendencies of that version become more prolific. Rinse and repeat billions of times. That's why there is no such thing as a fixed direction to evolution - change the environment and the success criteria change and things go in a different direction.

Purposeless, blind, but selective.

I am clearly not religious, that's just a lame attempt to gain cover for your dependent beliefs. At least be like the Jehovahs Witnesses and be prepared to stand by your beliefs for what they are rather than be so ashamed of them as to try to claim an opponent shares them.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:56 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Tenez wrote:I positioned myself as scientifically as possible but it was of course in vain. It is just sad that you don't even realise you have applied the same kind of logic as a jehovah's witness when confronted to the uniqueness of universe and life. You believe (even are certain there is) but so far there is no proof of it, like there is no proof of God. 

A purely scientific mind is simply left in the doubt.....until proven otherwise.
Yeah, you scientifically imagine there must be a purpose because you can't conceive how the Universe could come into being or matter could organise as it could. I can. That's why I don't need all this fantasy purpose crap.
Of course there is  purpose in everything, including in every word you have written in your post.
Something is keeping this world going in a very organised, purposeful way and order day in day out, year in year out.
It really isn't you know. You're conning yourself.
I could say the same about your comvictions, but what's the point of that?




Sorry, I forgot there is no point in anything..Winking
I know you're a convinced Christian. That's ok, I actually find that more honest than some of the other arguments I'm contending with here. I do think you should provide some evidence to support your views rather than thinking simple repetition makes it so. If it's just "Faith" then say so and we've no grounds left to debate. I'm cool with that.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:18 am

That's just it, BB.... You are saying that the end result (things having absolute purpose, as Tenez states) can in no way be used as evidence of a god.  And it can.  Because a god would create the necessary conditions and the laws of evolution in the first place - knowing that the END RESULT would have purpose.  It's really not as cut and dry as you think.

Daniel

Posts : 3127
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:33 pm

Oh it absolutely is... because all you're doing is using magic as it's own explanation. The problem with magic is that it's absolute bollocks and is just the solution people run to when they can't work out what's happening.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:13 pm

No, I'm not.  Science is never going to explain  where science came from. It can't by definition, as the laws did not exist before the universe. And you're still left with not giving us an answer for where the universe came from.  You're just doing what Hawking and Dawkins do...  deflect.  Say it doesn't matter. Or just that somehow science will provide the answer, and if it doesn't, so what.  People care far more about the why than the how.  And science doesn't answer the why. 

I don't think it has to be a "magic man" either... it just has to be some sort of lifeform, living on a totally different plane of existence to us.  We might be nothing but an entertainment channel. But, imho, matter being created by something existing outside of time seems far more likely than matter coming from nothing and managing to create systems that become self aware. 

That's why science is never going to win, ultimately.  It can explain as much as it likes about the system... but not the question everyone wants answering:  How did the system get here in the first place.  And "multiverse" is just science's "magic man" answer.

Daniel

Posts : 3127
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:33 am

Oh ok, science doesn't have the answer so it requires the presence of a creating lifeform to explain what science will never.

Just one question. 

Where did the lifeform come from?

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:34 am

And matter has not become self-aware. There is no self-awareness, just sensory perception and information processing.

Unless you think computers are self aware.


Multiverse answers nothing, it's just a theory that expands the scope thing we live in and offers an idea that the Universe we observe might have arisen from a greater arena, but it is no magical explanation for ultimate origin. You're attacking a strawman.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:37 am

bogbrush wrote:And matter has not become self-aware. There is no self-awareness, just sensory perception and information processing.

Unless you think computers are self aware.


Multiverse explains nothing. You're attacking a strawman.

Are you self-aware?

noleisthebest

Posts : 25119
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:48 am

bogbrush wrote:Oh ok, science doesn't have the answer so it requires the presence of a creating lifeform to explain what science will never.

Just one question. 

Where did the lifeform come from?
Doesn’t science, your god, have an answer for that question?

noleisthebest

Posts : 25119
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by legendkillar on Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:19 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:And matter has not become self-aware. There is no self-awareness, just sensory perception and information processing.

Unless you think computers are self aware.


Multiverse explains nothing. You're attacking a strawman.

Are you self-aware?


I think he's bisexual or is that Jahu? Can't remember.

legendkillar

Posts : 1926
Join date : 2012-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:16 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Oh ok, science doesn't have the answer so it requires the presence of a creating lifeform to explain what science will never.

Just one question. 

Where did the lifeform come from?
Doesn’t science, your god, have an answer for that question?
Well as I don't believe there is a God the the answer to that is pretty obvious.

Since it's you lot who think the answer to the origin of all this is this other being, then it's on you to answer the question. Where did this other lifeform (as Daniel calls it) or God (as you do) come from?

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:20 pm

The lifeform would not exist in time, BB.  It would live outside of it. Outside of our laws. Therefore without time and our laws, there is no meaning to the question of where or when it came from.  The problem with having no creator at all is that we are self aware matter with emotions (that cannot be explained purely by math, see Penrose et al). They are subjective experiences.

I'd be more than happy to accept that no creator is more likely if matter didn't become self aware and have.  The fact is... it does.  It demands an answer.  One science will never give.

Note, I said more likely.  I am not saying that there is a creator type "being".  I am saying I personally believe it to be more likely. Self aware, living, thinking, feeling organisms absolutely demand more than math.  Whether you like it or not... they do.  And self awareness and feelings are a fact, BB. You experience it, so it's real.

This is exactly the nonsense I was talking about before.  To get around the argument, you just claim the argument doesn't exist.

Daniel

Posts : 3127
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:48 pm

Daniel wrote:The lifeform would not exist in time, BB.  It would live outside of it. Outside of our laws. Therefore without time and our laws, there is no meaning to the question of where or when it came from.  The problem with having no creator at all is that we are self aware matter with emotions (that cannot be explained purely by math, see Penrose et al). They are subjective experiences.

I'd be more than happy to accept that no creator is more likely if matter didn't become self aware and have.  The fact is... it does.  It demands an answer.  One science will never give.

Note, I said more likely.  I am not saying that there is a creator type "being".  I am saying I personally believe it to be more likely. Self aware, living, thinking, feeling organisms absolutely demand more than math.  Whether you like it or not... they do.  And self awareness and feelings are a fact, BB. You experience it, so it's real.

This is exactly the nonsense I was talking about before.  To get around the argument, you just claim the argument doesn't exist.
This is truly hilarious.

When I suggest that there might be ways that time and matter can come into being this is dismissed as crap, but when you invent a new being that lives outside time and creates it all this is rational and considered. Utter nonsense just fabricated to make you feel happier about "purpose".

And as I keep saying, your self-awareness is nothing but an illusion. A false premise. I can even describe to you how the illusion develops, a smooth path from a set of sensory processing devices becoming more and more complex until the processing so so extreme that an illusion of awareness is there. If you think I'm wrong please point out where the awareness blinks in on the path from virus to human, where the boundary is.

You guys are going to get a Hell of a shock when the first AI behaves in a way you cannot distinguish from a living person; then you're going to have to reflect not so much on how this thing became "alive", but on what on Earth made you think you were any more than it in the first place.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:10 pm

bogbrush wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Oh ok, science doesn't have the answer so it requires the presence of a creating lifeform to explain what science will never.

Just one question. 

Where did the lifeform come from?
Doesn’t science, your god, have an answer for that question?
Well as I don't believe there is a God the the answer to that is pretty obvious.

Since it's you lot who think the answer to the origin of all this is this other being, then it's on you to answer the question. Where did this other lifeform (as Daniel calls it) or God (as you do) come from?

I didn't make God, so I don't know where he came from.
But I know we operate in these two created dimensions of time and space. And that we Know so little. And that outside us time does not exist.
And that we have so many more questions than answers.
And that science is just a drop in the ocean of human effort to describe and understand the world around us.

One prideful little raft on the ocean of Eternity.

The genius of mathematics.
The genius of Pi number.
The here and now. Followed by endless Heres and Nows.

The physical, material side of us is so irrelevant in that Big picture which is full of mysteries.
The Bible is a wonderful book. Give it a chance. One on one.

noleisthebest

Posts : 25119
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:37 pm

In addition to the above...

If you are just an accident of chemical actions and reactions...why did you have a need for a Mrs B?

And why did the Mrs B have a need for a Mr B?

noleisthebest

Posts : 25119
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:07 am

I agree with Daniel in that science does not (and likely cannot) provide answers on God's existence.

I am not an expert on religion but the way I see it, religion (or at least Christianity) was always meant to require a leap of faith - there was not going to be a proof.

To the extent that science has attempted to come and explain "everything" and remove the need for "faith", it strikes me that it clearly failed. If anything, it is clearer now than before that it probably fundamentally cannot ever succeed. There are limits to what it can address.

But while science may not be able to answer the fundamental questions, it has been quite good at answering many practical questions. So much so that attempts are often made to turn the tables and say "since this question cannot be scientifically addressed, it is an invalid question (or even more extremely, as I think BB does: since existence of God cannot be proven either way, He does not exist)". But that strikes me as rather cheeky - it effectively requires a leap of faith that would be scoffed at if the other side did it.

summerblues

Posts : 3055
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:11 am

noleisthebest wrote:In addition to the above...

If you are just an accident of chemical actions and reactions...why did you have a need for a Mrs B?

And why did the Mrs B have a need for a Mr B?
Really simple. Because the only way I got here was by primitive organisms pooling genes to produce copies. Asexual reproduction also works but the pooling tends to produce greater variation and therefore more chances for offspring that are better suited to the environment. All accidental, but regimented by survival mechanisms.

I’m an organism based on pooled copying mechanisms, hence the drive to find Mrs B.


Last edited by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:17 am

summerblues wrote:I agree with Daniel in that science does not (and likely cannot) provide answers on God's existence.

I am not an expert on religion but the way I see it, religion (or at least Christianity) was always meant to require a leap of faith - there was not going to be a proof.

To the extent that science has attempted to come and explain "everything" and remove the need for "faith", it strikes me that it clearly failed.  If anything, it is clearer now than before that it probably fundamentally cannot ever succeed.  There are limits to what it can address.

But while science may not be able to answer the fundamental questions, it has been quite good at answering many practical questions.  So much so that attempts are often made to turn the tables and say "since this question cannot be scientifically addressed, it is an invalid question (or even more extremely, as I think BB does: since existence of God cannot be proven either way, He does not exist)".  But that strikes me as rather cheeky - it effectively requires a leap of faith that would be scoffed at if the other side did it.
So we learn more and more, at an accelerating rate...... and the conclusion is that we’ll never explain the origin of the Universe?

I’d have thought the obviius conclusion by extrapolating advancement in knowledge is that we quite possibly work all this out. Hell, 200 years ago we couldn’t fly or have telecommunications. 600 years ago the nutters had us thinking the Sun orbited the Earth.

Why, in say 50, 100, 500, 1000, 10000 years might we not have done it?

God doesn’t exist because it’s a stupid idea invented by primitives that has no basis in evidence whatsoever. Belief in God is defined by self-proclaimed ignorance, which I think if people really thought about it they would find embarrassing.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:17 am

noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Oh ok, science doesn't have the answer so it requires the presence of a creating lifeform to explain what science will never.

Just one question. 

Where did the lifeform come from?
Doesn’t science, your god, have an answer for that question?
Well as I don't believe there is a God the the answer to that is pretty obvious.

Since it's you lot who think the answer to the origin of all this is this other being, then it's on you to answer the question. Where did this other lifeform (as Daniel calls it) or God (as you do) come from?

I didn't make God, so I don't know where he came from.
But I know we operate in these two created dimensions of time and space. And that we Know so little. And that outside us time does not exist.
And that we have so many more questions than answers.
And that science is just a drop in the ocean of human effort to describe and understand the world around us.

One prideful little raft on the ocean of Eternity.

The genius of mathematics.
The genius of Pi number.
The here and now. Followed by endless Heres and Nows.

The physical, material side of us is so irrelevant in that Big picture which is full of mysteries.
The Bible is a wonderful book. Give it a chance. One on one.
Cod philosophy. You need to make it rhyme and pretend it was just a poem.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:20 am

bogbrush wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:In addition to the above...

If you are just an accident of chemical actions and reactions...why did you have a need for a Mrs B?

And why did the Mrs B have a need for a Mr B?
Really simple. Because the only way I got here was by primitive organisms pooling genes to produce copies. Asexual reproduction also works but the pooling tends to produce greater variation and therefore more chances for offspring that are better suited to the environment. All accidental, but regimented by survival mechanisms.
If it is accidental, why are you living under the same roof with Mrs B, why did you get married?
Why do (if you have any) children bear your surname?

Why not carry on like lions, sparrows, tomatoes....


noleisthebest

Posts : 25119
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:23 am

We do these things because that’s our instincts, and our instincts come from inbuilt characteristics, and we have them because our ancestors passed them on, and they passed them on because they lived to reproduce, and they lived to reproduce because they were the ones with the most successful reproductive instincts, and the ones with poor ones tended to die out.

We’re exactly like the lions & sparrows. They do exactly the same thing. Exactly.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:29 pm

bogbrush wrote:So we learn more and more, [...]
God doesn’t exist because it’s a stupid idea invented by primitives that has no basis in evidence whatsoever.
But this boils down to saying that
(a) We may not know how come the world exists but we have found so many other things that it is reasonable to assume that one day we get there and
(b) If there is no scientific evidence for God, we should conclude He does not exist.

Neither of which is quite kosher.

The first one makes a big leap of faith. It is not at all clear that the kinds of advancements that science has made suggest we will get there in future. I would say just the opposite. While science has been very good in its domain, it really only has been able to talk about "how" rather than "why".

And the second one is just plain nonsense.

summerblues

Posts : 3055
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:22 pm

You've made science your religion BB.  But let me know when your science and math can explain why red looks like red, and blue looks like blue.  That's where it all collapses on you.  Where the math can't work.  Feelings, qualia in general.

Daniel

Posts : 3127
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:34 pm

summerblues wrote:
bogbrush wrote:So we learn more and more, [...]
God doesn’t exist because it’s a stupid idea invented by primitives that has no basis in evidence whatsoever.
But this boils down to saying that
(a) We may not know how come the world exists but we have found so many other things that it is reasonable to assume that one day we get there and
(b) If there is no scientific evidence for God, we should conclude He does not exist.

Neither of which is quite kosher.

The first one makes a big leap of faith.  It is not at all clear that the kinds of advancements that science has made suggest we will get there in future.  I would say just the opposite.  While science has been very good in its domain, it really only has been able to talk about "how" rather than "why".

And the second one is just plain nonsense.
The first is reasonable. You agree that knowledge is being added to at an exponentially increasing rate? You agree that soon we will develop AI that will probably have intelligence quotients far ahead of our own? It’s only headed one way isn’t it?

As for the second, well you can’t disprove fairies or Santa can you? Or Odin, Zeus, Baal or the leprechauns. Shall we keep an open mind on them?

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:36 pm

Daniel wrote:You've made science your religion BB.  But let me know when your science and math can explain why red looks like red, and blue looks like blue.  That's where it all collapses on you.  Where the math can't work.  Feelings, qualia in general.
It’s really the limits of your own knowledge that are troubling you here. If i have faith in anything it’s not science but rationality. 

And that first effort is getting very tired. Just have the courage to stand up for your religious faith without being ashamed of it and trying to share the mess around.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:59 pm

Daniel wrote:You've made science your religion BB.  But let me know when your science and math can explain why red looks like red, and blue looks like blue.  That's where it all collapses on you.  Where the math can't work.  Feelings, qualia in general.
Shockingly weak argument. Materials reflect light at differing wavelengths depending on their composition or surface. Our eyes absorb this light and our brains INTERPRET those wavelengths as something we call colour. There is no colour, just interpretation of wavelength.

That’s why flowers are completely differently “coloured” to us than some insects. Our eyes cannot capture the radiation at ultra violet wavelength so our brains report no interpretation of colour. We see completely different images.

Easy.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:13 pm

Wavelength is math.  The interpretation cannot be explained by math.  You couldn't tell a blind person what red is.  No science would aid you there.

It's not "easy", because people far far more intelligent than you - including scientists and philosophers - debate this seriously and every single day without agreeing. You haven't found the answer on a tennis forum in 2 seconds.  Laugh  Your ego is in the way yet again.

Daniel

Posts : 3127
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:53 pm

“Wavelength is math”. Yeah, thanks for that.

Yes, it’s really easy. And I’ve not found anything on a tennis forum, I have thought and studied this sort of thing for decades. If only you could give yourself a chance it’s you who could be learning this on a tennis forum Doh

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:55 pm

Well, then, write a paper and become famous.  Because you've obviously worked all this out where Penrose, Dawkins, Hoyle, and many others have failed.  You can't answer the simplest of questions... why does red look like red.  Why does it not look like yellow?  And why does it look like anything?  You can open a human brain up and look at every neuron and you won't find the answer there. Because life is more than math.  It's more than science.

Daniel

Posts : 3127
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:45 pm

bogbrush wrote:The first is reasonable. You agree that knowledge is being added to at an exponentially increasing rate? You agree that soon we will develop AI that will probably have intelligence quotients far ahead of our own? It’s only headed one way isn’t it?
Just because knowledge is expanding - at whatever pace - does not come close to implying that we have a chance to one day know "everything".  It is as if you were counting numbers 1, 2, 3,... faster and faster and tried to suggest that since you are getting much faster very quickly, eventually you will count them all.  But you never would.  And I would suggest, if anything, we have more indication now than 200-300 hundred years ago that the world is built in a manner that makes it fundamentally impossible for us to fully explain.  Of course, even if I am right, that alone does not say anything about the existence of God one way or another.  But the claim that "we are advancing faster and faster so it is only reasonable to assume we will make it" is pulled out of thin air.

bogbrush wrote:As for the second, well you can’t disprove fairies or Santa can you? Or Odin, Zeus, Baal or the leprechauns. Shall we keep an open mind on them?
No, but the fact you cannot disprove their existence should give you an inkling that under the hood you are making faith-based decisions.  When people used to believe in fairies etc, it is not because they were dumber than us.  It is because they did not have the same knowledge that we do.  As we learn more and more, we find that lightning is "not Zeus but electricity", so to speak.  But unless we have answers to everything, it is just a cleaning and simplifying exercise, and it is not clear whether it all converges to, say, one God having created it all, or to no gods at all.  You prefer the latter option, and that is all fine - as long as you can acknowledge that, again, you are making a faith based decision.  But to extrapolate from "no leprechauns" to "no God" while pretending that it is where science leads you is, as I said before, plain nonsense.

summerblues

Posts : 3055
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:47 pm

On a separate topic, web-based ads are getting better. As I was typing my previous post, an ad popped up trying to sell me a copy of the Bible.

In the past, all ads on sports related websites seemed to be about beautiful women who could not wait to meet me.

summerblues

Posts : 3055
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:56 pm

summerblues wrote:On a separate topic, web-based ads are getting better. As I was typing my previous post, an ad popped up trying to sell me a copy of the Bible.

In the past, all ads on sports related websites seemed to be about [b]beautiful women who could not wait to meet me.[b]

That explains why haven’t had much time to follow tennis lately...Winking

noleisthebest

Posts : 25119
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:47 pm

summerblues wrote:
bogbrush wrote:The first is reasonable. You agree that knowledge is being added to at an exponentially increasing rate? You agree that soon we will develop AI that will probably have intelligence quotients far ahead of our own? It’s only headed one way isn’t it?
Just because knowledge is expanding - at whatever pace - does not come close to implying that we have a chance to one day know "everything".  It is as if you were counting numbers 1, 2, 3,... faster and faster and tried to suggest that since you are getting much faster very quickly, eventually you will count them all.  But you never would.  And I would suggest, if anything, we have more indication now than 200-300 hundred years ago that the world is built in a manner that makes it fundamentally impossible for us to fully explain.  Of course, even if I am right, that alone does not say anything about the existence of God one way or another.  But the claim that "we are advancing faster and faster so it is only reasonable to assume we will make it" is pulled out of thin air.

bogbrush wrote:As for the second, well you can’t disprove fairies or Santa can you? Or Odin, Zeus, Baal or the leprechauns. Shall we keep an open mind on them?
No, but the fact you cannot disprove their existence should give you an inkling that under the hood you are making faith-based decisions.  When people used to believe in fairies etc, it is not because they were dumber than us.  It is because they did not have the same knowledge that we do.  As we learn more and more, we find that lightning is "not Zeus but electricity", so to speak.  But unless we have answers to everything, it is just a cleaning and simplifying exercise, and it is not clear whether it all converges to, say, one God having created it all, or to no gods at all.  You prefer the latter option, and that is all fine - as long as you can acknowledge that, again, you are making a faith based decision.  But to extrapolate from "no leprechauns" to "no God" while pretending that it is where science leads you is, as I said before, plain nonsense.
No, they weren’t dumber. They knew less and had fewer excuses to believe in this rubbish.

Leprechauns are obviously stupid fantasies. My point is that the reason for dis issuing them - that they are invebtionscwithout evidence - stands the same for the Christian God or any of the others.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:48 pm

Daniel wrote:Well, then, write a paper and become famous.  Because you've obviously worked all this out where Penrose, Dawkins, Hoyle, and many others have failed.  You can't answer the simplest of questions... why does red look like red.  Why does it not look like yellow?  And why does it look like anything?  You can open a human brain up and look at every neuron and you won't find the answer there. Because life is more than math.  It's more than science.
No need, it’s obvious.

I told you why you think it’s red or yellow in really straightforward terms. Light wavelength (a measurable property) and information processing. As for not finding it lying around in the neutrons (seriously?), well you can’t see numbers in a computer but you do agree it can add up don’t you? You just don’t want to recognise this, it gets in the way of your belief in God.

bogbrush

Posts : 1289
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:11 am

bogbrush wrote:My point is that the reason for dis issuing them - that they are invebtionscwithout evidence - stands the same for the Christian God or any of the others.
People believed in leprechauns etc because they tried to explain the world as best they could.  Nothing wrong with that.  They only became redundant because we were able to explain physical phenomena better without them.  You believe the same now applies to God.  But there is a difference.  Unlike with leprechauns, we have never crossed the line where we can explain everything.  And it is not at all clear we can ever do that.  You believe we can, but until we do, your disbelief is not based on science but rather on aesthetics:  to you, the non-existence of God appears more aesthetically consistent with whatever we have discovered with science thus far.  That is ok except that you do not want to present it that way, i.e., as one possible belief among many.  You want to present your view as scientific.

But that kind of intellectual pirouette is disingenuous.  At the end of the day, your appeal to aesthetics is not that different from nitb's inference of God's existence via appeal to the aesthetics of carnal relations between you and Mrs. BB.  In fact, in some sense nitb's approach is more self-consistent.  She readily admits her belief in God requires leap of faith, whereas you pretend that your disbelief does not.

summerblues

Posts : 3055
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:16 am

noleisthebest wrote:That explains why haven’t had much time to follow tennis lately...Winking
Oh dear no no no no no.  I am very much a one woman man.  Dull as can be.

summerblues

Posts : 3055
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum